| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Amit Kapila <amit(dot)kapila16(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: More issues with pg_verify_checksums and checksum verification in base backups |
| Date: | 2018-11-02 00:33:59 |
| Message-ID: | 20181102003359.GQ1727@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Nov 01, 2018 at 04:44:40PM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> This sounds like a good argument for having a whitelist approach, but
> is it really a big problem if a user gets warning for files that the
> utility is not able to verify checksums for? I think in some sense
> this message can be useful to the user as it can allow him to know
> which files are not verified by the utility for some form of
> corruption. I guess one can say that users might not be interested in
> this information in which case such a check could be optional as you
> seem to be suggesting in the following paragraph.
The replication protocol supports NOVERIFY_CHECKSUMS to avoid the
warnings so they enabled by default, and can be disabled at will.
pg_basebackup supports the same interface.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2018-11-02 00:38:02 | Re: INSTALL file |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2018-11-02 00:31:38 | partitioned indexes and tablespaces |